Suppressed tortures had been used in empty courtrooms against veterans, in previous decades, in order to benefit special interests groups and cronies and fellow lawyers of elected representatives and judges. The necessary result was intimidation and fraudulent court histories. Habeas corpus hearings were always no more than a joke, and bogus commitments were always the norm.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

[Victims of Court Corruption] Proposed New Vision for North Dakota JAIL4Judges

Ed Curtis, I am getting back to you regarding your comment below and your position regarding North Dakota J.A.I.L. I have checked, and it appears that the position of North Dakota JIC is available.

Below you state that you joined J.A.I.L. five or so years ago during the South Dakota effort. Am I correct to assume that you then once lived in South Dakota and have now relocated to North Dakota?

Also, my research reveals that North Dakota is an Initiative such as South Dakota. Am I correct in my research on that point?

Immediately below I have pasted in the North Dakota Initiative already on the North Dakota J.A.I.L. website. It may need t be revisited and updated, which should pose no problem.

So, assuming you now live in North Dakota, are your requesting to cease upon the available position of North Dakota JIC? If so, I need a positive attestation of that fact, and a few words from you for publication purposes as to why you wish to become the JIC (JAILer-In-Chief) of North Dakota.

As you probably already know, I am located in California, and we are a very good Initiative State, albeit, we face a tremendous uphill battle in this state in getting a Constitutional Initiative on the ballot. California promises a great reward for judicial accountability if it can be accomplished, but accomplishing that goal is the great set-back.

In South Dakota we dealt with it being one-fiftieth of the population of California, which made it comparatively much easier to get South Dakota J.A.I.L. on the ballot with only 33,500 signatures needed. We gathered 48,000 signatures, more than needed.

As to what happened there in South Dakota, that is history, and I am sure you witnessed this fiasco first-hand. One mistake made there was assuming that getting it on the ballot was the big part, as we had nothing in which to counter the big boys lies and propaganda in describing what J.A.I.L. was all about. Obviously, we must now correctly assume that getting J.A.I.L. on the ballot is far less than half of the task to be accomplished. We brought out their big guns of facing the opposition of the bankers, the oil companies, and the insurance industries. J.A.I.L. threw fear in the hearts of those controlling our nation, and they desperately fought as if the People were going to overthrow their gravy train empire, so they pulled out the stops to defeat us.

Let me hear from you as to my questions above. Albeit, not a deciding factor, I am just curious. Would you happen to be a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior? God bless you, Ed.

Ron Branson

Initiative

Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.)

(a) Preamble. We, the People of North Dakota, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; and when judges abuse their power, the people are obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend Article I of our Constitution with these provisions, which shall be known as "The Judicial Accountability Amendment."

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this amendment:

The term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void judgment or order.

The term "seat" shall mean a situs and facility that is suitable for usage by the Jury.

The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision.

Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural.

(c) Immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shall be extended to any judge of this State except as is specifically set forth in this Amendment. Preserving the purpose of protecting judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of North Dakota or the United States.

(d) Special Grand Jury. There is hereby created within this State a twenty-five member Special Grand Jury with statewide jurisdiction having power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county grand juries. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a judge would be frivolous and harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge complained of.

(e) Professional Counsel. The Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. Notwithstanding the one year, a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute current cases in which they are involved through all appeals and any complaints for judicial misconduct.

(f) Establishment of Special Grand Jury Seat. Within ninety days following the ratification of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a seat for the Special Grand Jury. Such seat shall be reasonably placed proportionately according to population, but shall not be located within a mile of any judicial body. Should the Legislature fail to so act within ninety days, its members shall permanently forfeit their salaries and per diem pay, beginning on the ninety-first day, until such time that it abides by the terms of this (f) section.

(g) Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be deducted two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into the exclusive trust account created by this Amendment in paragraph (k) for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph (h), surcharges under paragraph (i), forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph (q), and fines imposed under paragraph (r).

(h) Filing Fees. Attorneys filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Grand Jury in behalf of their client, shall at the time of filing, pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Grand Jury in their own behalf as a matter of right, shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of fifty dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee.

(i) Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph (g)), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to make this Amendment self-supporting.

(j) Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to a Superior Court judge, prorated according to the number of days actually served.

(k) Annual Budget. The Special Grand Jury shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries of the twenty-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the State Controller. Should the trust balance within any budget year drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of twenty Superior Court judges, the State Controller shall so notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the State Controller shall return such excess to the state treasury.

(l) Jurisdiction. Such Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules to assure attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought. Except as provided in paragraphs (s) and (w), no complaint of misconduct shall be considered by the Special Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period. (Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Jury became functional. This provision applies remedially and retroactively.) Should the complainant opt to proceed to the United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the disposition by that court.

(m) Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and have been an inhabitant of North Dakota for two years immediately prior to having his/her name drawn. Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons.

(n) Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn by public lot by the Secretary of State from names on the voters' rolls and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing.

(o) Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Jury, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two persons shall be rotated off the Special Grand Jury and new Citizens seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror drawn to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.

(p) Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed complaint upon the subject judge and notice to the complainant of such service. The judge shall have twenty days to serve and file an answer. The complainant shall have fifteen days to reply to the judge's answer. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions for good cause.) The Special Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. The Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with its reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, serving on all parties its decision on whether immunity shall be barred as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Grand Jury within fifteen days with service upon the opposition. Fifteen days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination within thirty days. All allegations of the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring a perception of justice and accountability of the judiciary, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this Amendment against a State judge shall not commence until the rendering of a final decision by the Special Grand Jury. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen shall determine any matter.

(q) Removal. Whenever any judge has received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office, and thereafter shall not serve in any State judicial office, including that of private judge. Judicial retirement for such removed judge shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such person would have otherwise been entitled. Early retirement shall not avert third-strike penalties.

(r) Indictment. Should the Special Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge against whom a complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such judge except where double jeopardy attaches. The Special Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal relationship, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, the special trial jury shall have exclusive power of sentencing (limited to incarceration, fines and/or community service), which shall be derived by an average of the sentences of the trial jurors.

(s) Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct of a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury upon all the following prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.

(t) Public Indemnification. No judge complained of, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment.

(u) Enforcement. No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of the Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt.

(v) Redress. The provisions of this Amendment are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.

(w) Challenges to Amendment. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge to this Amendment, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class-action, or by any adversely affected person.

(x) Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflict with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision. The foreperson of the Special Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July. Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ed Curtis wrote:

Hey Ron, I was wondering if you have a state all wrapped up yet, as I would like to wrap up the most corrupt State of N.D. Your victory! Right now, It is just me VS. THE STATE, and I will accept nothing less than total, 100% surrender.

I have a new and powerful kind of marketing concept and a spot in the movie lawless America, doing a shoot in Bismarck, N.D. I see major possibilities for your and my goals!

I am no writer, My goal is giving away my book. It is all I have to do to collect! If you can remodel it to your needs, I think it will market OUR N.W.O.

No disrespect, but 5+ years ago I joined JAIL4Judges S.D. You have been defending it, but it is time to market it to the right crowd! I know how to turn the tide. I see that it would be a crack heard around the world, and good for my grand kids future!

You have posed the question, "Is J.A.I.L. sufficient?" and asked how the Special Grand Jury of Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) will work.

As is commonly known, we already have common Grand Juries throughout the country which can can investigate all wrong-doings, even if it be government entities. But what is not commonly known is that the government has cut off Grand Jury investigations of judges which started in California in 1960. In lieu thereof, the government has created Judicial Commissions that now supposedly investigate judges by the judges themselves, who they argue are best qualified to do this job.

I have a lot more I could say on this, but I shall move on. Since basically it is now judges that investigate judges, what J.A.I.L. seeks to do is reverse this situation by creating a Special Grand Jury that only has jurisdiction to investigate judges. And this is the very reason that the system hates J.A.I.L. so must as it counters their many years of effort to place judges out of reach of the people. All the people can now do is hope for justice (which shall never occur.) You write;

Problem is... where does the complainant go to sue the judge? Based on the text of the amendment, he goes to the same judiciary that the judge himself works for.

Doesn't that just sound like putting the fox in charge of the hen house? What happens if the judge presiding over the suit against the first judge is just as corrupt as the first judge? Do I sue him, also? What if the third judge is equally corrupt? And again? And again? And again?

We must understand that all Grand Juries, whether common or special, by their very nature, do not decide the merits of any case as they can only determine Probable Cause to be held for a trial before a Petit Jury. J.A.I.L. opens the door to expand criminal trials of judges to include civil trials of judges, and important addition.

The Special Grand Jury under J.A.I.L. only resolves whether a judge sued civilly may allege judicial immunity, nothing more. As it is now, all judges allege in a civil case judicial immunity, and the chances are right at 100% it will be granted.

But think for a moment. If the Special Grand Jury has already resolved that Judge A can be sued civilly, and the suit cannot be dismissed on that grounds, does it not make sense that if Judge B also willfully violates the law or the Constitution, and Special Grand Jury will be on their toes of that conspiracy?

The definition of a conspiracy is if two or more conspire together to complete a common goal, then all participants in the conspiracy are equally guilty. By this definition, an ongoing conspiracy may have no end. But isn't this true of most all conspiracies? Take for example the ongoing Federal Reserve conspiracy which has continued for a 100 years. If a civil conspiracy continues going around and around again and again, it is bound to result in a criminal conspiracy in which all participants involved will likely serve prison time.

Also, consider that once the Special Grand Jury has rendered its final decision, its decisions may be, and likely will be, published and open to daylight for the entire nation to see. As the old saying goes, you can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but never all the people all of the time. Truth has a way of catching up with falsehood. "[B]e sure your sin will find you out." Numbers 32:23.

Thank you for your inquiry, David.

Ron Branson

David Stebbins wrote:

Dear Jail 4 Judges,

In one of your website's FAQs, you answered a question of whether there may be an alternative besides JAIL4Judges to securing judicial accountability.

However, I am concerned that JAIL may not be enough.

The grand juries that the JAIL amendment would create would only have the ability to either prosecute a judge criminally (in which case, they are limited by their resources), or give a complainant the green light to sue the respondent judge. Problem is... where does the complainant go to sue the judge? Based on the text of the amendment, he goes to the same judiciary that the judge himself works for.

Doesn't that just sound like putting the fox in charge of the hen house? What happens if the judge presiding over the suit against the first judge is just as corrupt as the first judge? Do I sue him, also? What if the third judge is equally corrupt? And again? And again? And again?

I like the idea of having the grand juries be randomly chosen citizens, but they should have jurisdiction to fully adjudicate a civil action between a petitioner and a judge, maybe even imposing criminal sanctions in the exact same case (e.g. merging both civil and criminal cases)?

0 Comments:

About Me

(1) I am a person who had been plainly lynched by the outrageous illegal use of a very plainly fraudulent trial transcript (6804.84, New York County [In addition, the Court Reporter never even certified it with her signiture,nor did anyone ever certify this trial transcript in any other way]: It has always been the entire record of evidence that was used at my trial and the only possible official record of evidence.);The criminal ineffectiveness of trial and appellate counsels are the primary issues (2)I am a 61-year old grind: I exercise and study and prepare for another pro-se litigation with the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This Court always fights to hide the truth.
(New York County[100 Centre Street,N.Y.C. 10013])